oer. good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular meeting for wednesday, may 16, 2018. and this does not tolerate any disruptions of any kind. and when speaking before the commission if you care to, do state your name for the record. we will take roll at this time. >> president wolfram. commission commissioner. and commissioners, first on the agenda is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the items on interest to the public within the subject matter and jurisdiction of the commission and with respect to the agenda item, your comments will be addressed when we reach that item on the agenda.

each member may wish to address the commission for 3 minutes. does any member wish to speak on n non-agenda item? seeing none, we will close public comment. >> director's announcements is item one. >> the director will be joining us shortly, but i am happy to forward any questions you may have to him for answer at a future date. >> an item two, review plast events of the planning report, staft report, and announcements. >> a few items to share. at last week's planning commission hearing, the planning session unanimously support ed the certification of the central draft eir as well as the amendment to adopt the central

area plan. and just as a matter of housekeeping, i wanted to remind you that during the hearing, they will be providing review and comment on the pending district nominations that the commission made as part of the central soma plan perservation policies. we will keep you updated on that hearing and forward you a copy of their commentsreservation policies. we will keep you updated on that hearing and forward you a copy of their comments after that hearing. and the arts commission has told us they will be holding a hearing in early july to officially accept the cayman heights sculpture into the collection, and once that action is completed, the commission will work with department of public works to create an m.o.u. between the agencies outlining the responsibilities. as soon as we have that completed in early july, is likely when the safety wall landmark nomination will go to the full board for

consideration. and finally, wanted to make you aware of the cultural district legislation that has been introduced by supervisor ronen. originally introduced in october of last year, and as you know has gone through several amendments. on wednesday the rules committee heard the proposed ordinance, and at that hearing supervisor ronen introduced a large set of amendments to the ordinance. so in particular to revising the ordinance to allow the sponsor of an ordinance to propose the culture district to provide three departments to provide input. and mohcd is intended to be the city department that coordinates all the various city agencies and commissions with input and participation on the formation and mon the organize of the culture -- and the monitoring of

the culture districts. there were two other significant changes stemming from the amendments. one is to require that cultural district boundaries be contiguous and not overlap with other cultural districts. second, a repeated emphasis that cultural districts are intended to assist communities at risk of displacement, intelligent gentrifycation including ethnic and minorities. and there was a good deal of public testimony, over an hour of testimony, where speakers praised the ordinance as a means to keep communities in the city. and similar commendation was given by members of the rules committee during its deliberation. however, there were questions from the rules committee center and the mechanics of the ordinance including staffing levelling for the city family as well as timing on reporting and financing of the districts. and many sought clarification about the intent from the director of community development at mohcd in addition to supervisor ronen.

supervisor safai did ask the presiding city attorney whether the ordinance and amendments needed a continuance or passed out of committee at the hearing. the city attorney at that time responded that the scope of the amendments could be passed out of the committee at the hearing. the future cultural districts rising from the ordinance would need review by city commissions including historic preservation commission in accordance with the city charter. so at this point it doesn't appear that the board is prepared to forward the ordinance, the draft ordinance, to the body for review and comment, but we're happy to keep you updated on the ordinance as it moves through the process. so that concludes my comments, and happy to answer any questions. >> i am wondering since the future cultural districts would be coming to the legislation, does it affect us whether we could write a letter requesting the board for the ordinance for review and comment and perhaps postpone any vote on that?

is that something that would be an appropriate thing we could do? >> yes, we would be happy to provide a letter for submittal. >> colleagues, do you concur with that? >> i thought we were supposed to have an informational meeting on this. >> that was our original intent. but we became aware of the revised amended ordinance just last week, and then it was introduced very quickly at the board, and there wasn't an opportunity for us to prepare anything for this hearing. >> an i think maybe we should move forward with asking and writing a letter to request that we review and comment and since this does affect our work. hopefully they will take that request seriously. >> sure, happy to do that. >> thank you. commissioner, any other questions for staff? we can move on? >> very good, commissioners. we will place this under commissioner matter, number three, president's report and announcements. >> an i have no report or announcement. actually, i do have one that is the california preservation foundation is having the annual conference at the end of the week in palo alto.

so i encourage members of this commission and members of the public to attend. and san francisco heritage is having their annual soiree on saturday night at pier 70, so that is awesome. encourage people to attend. >> the same weekend. preservation weekend. yes, i think. i do have another announcement, which is for the hearing of june 6, i believe, is the next hearing date. and we are going to replace two members on an interim basis on the architectural review committee. commissioners johnck will be replaced by black due to quorum issues. do you accept that? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> very good. commission president, moving on item 4, consideration of

adoption. draft minutes for the arc february 21,, march 21 hearings as well as the regular hearing from may 2, 2018. i have no speaker cards. >> commissioner, any comment on the draft minutes? >> does any member of the public wish to comment on the draft minutes of february 21arc, march 21arc, or may 2hpc? seeing and hearing none, we will close public comment. do i have a motion to adopt the amendments? >> yes, i so move. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes for february 21 and march 21arc and the may 2 regular hearing of on that motion, commissioner black. >> yes. >> a commissioner johns. >> commissioner johnck. awe question question. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> commissioner hyland. >> commissioner wolfram. that passes unanimously 6-0. and that places us on item five, commission comments and questions.

>> seeing no comments or questions, we can move on. >> a very good. we will take up the matter of continuance and we will take up item nine as there is a request from the public for under the regular calendar. there is no consent calendar. so we will move to the regular calendar, and i understand the chair will ache take item nine out of order. >> we were going to make sure we have representatives from rec and park here. do we have those? >> we are going to take item nine with the request for continuance for this item. i think what we will do is speak to the continuance and if rec and park can come forward and respond to that request for continuance. >> we should probably have the requester speak first. >> actually -- >> okay. >> a member of the public has requested item nine be continued.

if you could please come forward and explain your request. you will have three minutes. >> good afternoon. i haven't been to city hall for several years. i have forgotten the procedures. i am joan wood. i have lived in telegraph hill in north beach on telegraph hill for 52 consecutive years in the same apartment. and i am a member of planning and zoning committee of telegraph hill dweller, although i am not here to speak on behalf of them. and also a member of friends of washington square. and to my shock, i would say

about three weeks ago a big sign appeared in the park. it was taken down immediately. it called for a complete renovation of washington square park, and some of that written in large crayon, park will be closed for one year. so i phoned the number which is listed and your secretary or something like that, and they confirmed that it will be closed for approximately one year. having lived there 52 years and previously been aware of the affairs of north beach and telegraph hill, i was stunned that i never heard about the park being closed for a year. i did hear that the irrigation system after four years of trying to get it fixed will be fixed. i know the playground in the square has been started as a separate project, but i am here to ask if you can postpone your approval because there is no

other place to publicly speak about it except here. normally there are public meetings about huge project like that. closing washington square park for one year is something that must be put before the public. there are many of us that live there and we're not -- anyway, this is a last resort and i have been attending every single meeting and planning of the telegraph hill dwellers and it has never come before them. i put in a call to the head of the committee and asked if there was something i should know about. she didn't call back. i hope that you can understand that part of the plan you are about to recommend, i assume, involves a lot of work involving cement, and when i asked the man on the phone from your commission, excuse me, he said this is because the grade is

damaging to wheel chairs and makes it difficult for wheelchairs. i walk on that park every single day of my life if i'm not in a hospital. and there is a tiniest grade. i can feel it because i'm 90 years old and i have arthritis, but wheelchairs don't have any problem. to -- that is the extended part of the work, and i think the irrigation system would be much shorter of a time to fix. could you please reconsider this plan and the public can have a say in it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you for letting me speak, and thank you to mr. connor from the rec and park department for allowing us to be here early and support the commission. and i want to follow up in a very specific thing that joan just told all of us. she is a person who has lived here for a long time and sometimes uses a wheelchair and knows of people who use wheelchairs.

i don't and maybe other people who don't. and the whole neighborhood of a give and take of the outreach to the neighborhood is to include information and important engineering information that affect the design of the park. for instance, by not going formally, and i know some people were contacted -- the president of the telegraph hill builders say i know about it, but we have 465 members and none of them know about it, and all of them like joan wood and like myself should have an opportunity to share with you and with the park service, first, what and how we use the park and how the use of the park might effect the engineering and design elements that are here for consideration today. for this reason alone i think it's a practical matter to allow us at least one month to so that the rec and park department can come to the board of telegraph hill dwellers and perhaps people at the church as well as where i work and have worked for over 18 years as a volunteer for the

homeless. we all know there is a homeless issue in san francisco, so i would argue that some of the design elements are going to cause problems for policing and keeping the park safe. some of the various design elements i am here to talk about. and for that reason, again, we are simply asking for a delay in the proceedings so we can all have input on the design elements. and board peace citizens is a drop-in center that i work with as well as st. vincent depaul. we all work with the neighborhood, and we have been told by mr. conover that the homeless will be kind of solved by northbeat citizen, but they can't be. it is not an easy problem to fix. it is not that we're against the project. we for the most part believe it should eventually go forward, but in addition to appearing before telegraph hill dwellers, we are hoping the city will come up with a one or two-page plan perhaps with the police and telegraph hill dwellers and st. vincent depaul and north beach

citizen that this is how we see 20 people living in the park and this where is they are going. they are not all going into shelters. they are not easy to be moved around that way. we just had a crime committed in the nearly adjacent park. perhaps you read about it in the paper. a woman sadly stabbed somebody else in the park, joe dimaggio playground. if we had the 20 people in washington square suddenly moved because of the park and closed to joe dimaggio playground, we need as a city buy-in from the community so we all agree this is going to happen and share the responsibility of taking care of those homeless people. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> excuse me. point of order. did the gentleman announce who he was? >> he is not required to. >> no. >> okay. >> my make the is mark bruno.

>> mark bruno. >> >> i am the project manager for the rec and park department managing the washington square and water conservation projects. we are really pleased to be working on the washington square water conservation project. in 2012 rec and park partnered with sfpu. , to develop the parks, water and conservation plan for 12 parks of the greatest water savings needs. washington square is the highest user of irrigation water oen a per square foot basis of any park in the city in the system. the 1.5 acre irrigated area uses approximately 3.3 million gallons of water a year. and this project seeks to reduce that water use to approximately 1 million gallons a year. we are looking to cut the water use by 2/3 in the park. additionally, the site's main lawn really suffers from oversaturated soil conditions,

making large sections of the park difficult to use for the community. and the project seeks to also replace the existing subdrainage system under the main lawn to insure that the full lawn is usable throughout the year. there have been several requests by the community to include new pathways in the project scope. the project was initially envisioned just as irrigation and drainage project. in the outreach we received letters and communication requesting the pathways. we have included the pathways in the application, although we do not have funding for the pathways yet. and this is because we are working with elected officials to try to identify the funding for the pathways and really hope to deliver it to the community. so we're trying to just do that in an alternate scope that we hope we can include. the main reason for the switch from the exist iing asphalt to e

stained concrete we are proposing is for a.d.a. reasons. the current slopes on the pathways are probably at least 1/3 of the pathway has a cross slope that exceeds a.d.a. levels and to insure that we have the a.d.a. accessibility guidelines met. so we hope to match the existing asphalt. >> excuse my interruption, but at this moment we are not talking to the project, but to the matter of continue. >> okay. and so let me skip to that. to date we have engaged with community members and north beach and major concerns about the closure have been homelessness and the duration of the closure, and alternate park facilities. we have a lot of community engagement to continue to do.

and we really see this approval as insuring that the designer proposing is in keeping with landmark status of the park. and this will not be the final hearing before the park and rec and we have a lot of community engagement to do and the park will finally need approval from the rec and park commission for the project to move forward. >> are you opposed to or are you neutral about the continuance? >> i would say i am neutral. i would like to present the project and if we have one more step forward to take the project, but we will be fine either way. >> if i may, so what i understood you to say is that you are looking for the approved of the concept design and there will be not only future public meetings, but the rec and park commission actually has to i a prove the final design, correct?

>> we need this done for rec and park to finally approve the project. and i think a lot of the concerns relate to the impacts of the closure on the community, which we still in terms of project planning, still have a lot of engagement that we will be doing. >> all right. so because from what i heard from the community, the concerns aren't really about historic issues but more about the closure and the homeless question and other issues related to the use of the park, which aren't really things that this commission can address and take into consideration. >> and the proper notification. >> the notification was completed by the planning department, i assume. for this hearing. right? thank you. we will consider that. does any member of the public wish to speak to the continuance of the item? if so, please come forward.

>> i have lived in knot beach for about 10 years and am a small business owner. from a financial aspect, i would like to ask for postponement as well. it's been really hard to do business in north beach. we had about two years of construction on the jasper alley, columbus avenue, and that was also the staging ground for a lot of the construction, so a lot of construction equipment parked outside of my business. we are seeing a lot of empty store fronts already. and then with the st. patrick's day fire, that's a whole bunch more businesses that people aren't coming into the neighborhood. we are seeing less foot traffic. it would take the park away for a whole year, that is going to negatively affect a lot of our businesses. so i would like to ask for a postponement as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other member of the public wish to speak to the potential continuance of the item? seeing none, public comment is closed.

commissioners? commissioner johnck. >> an i would move continuance. it seems like there is some overlap here and even though i agree that some of the issues don't exactly apply to our historic issue, i was unaware that the park was going to close -- even though i thoroughly read the entire document. that would be my persuasion. i don't see a problem with moving it a month really with the parks department so we can do more and hear more about this. >> yes? >> commissioners, it would be helpful for staff and perhaps for park department to hear about what you would like us to accomplish in that month. i think we're prepared to present today. we do concur with president wolfram's comments that the concerns, while i am sure very important and valid, seem to be better served to be addressed at the rec-park commission hearing rather than through a month

delay or even a two-month continuance. it sounds like director ram mention there had will be a lot of community outreach. this is one step to keep the project moving forward. and certainly if the project were to change based oen that community input -- based on that community input, it would have to come back for you for re-review. for us seemed fairly straightforward that the commission can issue some sort of decision on the c of a and move forward with the community engagement. >> commissioner hyland? >> if we hear it today, we might be able to ask some questions and figure out why it takes a year to do this and what is being -- and what other options have been explored. >> okay. >> all right. >> any other comments or questions? >> i will withdraw my motion. >> so we will actually hear this item today. so i think why don't we have a

presentation on the project. and then we can take public comment on the actual project. >> good afternoon, commissioners. elizabeth johntier of planning staff. the project before you is a certificate of appropriateness for work at washington square park. the park is under the jurisdiction of the san francisco recreation and park department. the site is bounded by columbus avenue, fillbert, stockton, union, and powell street in the north beach neighborhood. in a p zoning and open space height involved district. washington square was locally designated as landmark number 226 in 1999. the square was established in 1850 and redesigned in 1958 according to to master plan by douglas bayliss and frances joseph mccarthy who were prominent designers of the mid

century modern period. the city park includes a large central lawn affected by concrete walking paths, benches, monuments and a playground and large trees and smaller shrub. a certificate of appropriateness was approved by the h.p.c. in march of 2017. rec and parks washington square water conservation project seeks to reduce the park's existing irrigation water use. it entails removal and replacement of the park's existing irrigation system. however, the designation ordinance for washington square outlines specific scopes of work that require a hearing before the h.p.c. these scopes include replacement or alteration to be parents of the park's benches, fencing barriers or walls, hard edged raised planting beds, mature trees, and changes to the paving plan including the paving material. this exhibit entitled procedures for review of alteration to

washington square for incorporation into the designation ordinance was included in your packet. based on the items that levi conover mentioned of the project, requiring review requires the removal and replacement of seven trees recommended for removal by the recs and park department tree assessment which is in your packet, and the planting of four new trees in areas where there were previously placed. in event, additional funding is secured, additional scopes will be included in the scope that is under review today. a.d.a. updpragrades to the path including regrading of the existing cross slope of the pathways. removal of existing asphalt pathways with stained concrete, installation of perimeter cobble pavers at the lawn and planting bed edges. installation of concrete curb along the planner beds edges, and removal and replacement of the existing wood benches in

kind as needed. there will be no change to the bench location. the intent is to retain as many existing benches as. as a minimum, the replacement of the bench legs might be necessary. they would be painted to match existing. the park plans is to layout of the pathways and the layout of the plant and bed perimeters would remain unchanged. the department has received public correspondence related to the project in regard to the duration of the closure of the park. based on the requirements of article 10 and the secretary of interior's standard, staff has determined that the proposed work is compatible with the character defining features of the landmark. the essential form and integrity of the landmark will not be impaired by the proposed project. staff finds that the proposed work maintains the historic configuration and visual appearance of the park. the trees shrubs and other ground cover are in keeping with existing plant palette.

and the perimeter paverers, curb, and replacement bench wills not alter the character-defining features of the landscape. beneather the fencing or any other will impact the use or open character of the landscape. staff recommends approval with the general conditions of the final materials before this review and planning department preservation staff. this concludes the presentation. i am available for any questions you may have. >> president wolfram: thank you. rec and park have a presentation? >> three minutes. >> you heard most of it. >> president wolfram: we will give you three more minutes. >> we discussed the a.d.a. requirements and the pathways and our intent really with this is to bring the park back to the existing condition. better than the existing condition and change the

configuration and things like the fence, the low fencing we have proposed are intended to help prevent people from walking across the new perennial beds. and really intended to be as unobtrusive as possible. just a couple of extra details on the project. the project is currently as imagined with the irrigation and drainage based scope and the project is funded in partnership with the p.u.c. large landscape grant program, rec and park water conservation program, and also general funds secured by supervisor peskin. to address the closure t project will require the closure of the majority of the park for up to the year with the exception that the northwest corner of the park that is the children's play area and restroom will remain open for the duration of the project. we are exploring all ways possible to expedite the

construction under the city contract code. and the yearlong closure that we have been messaging to the community is based on experience we have had at other sites that are frequently unforeseen conditions when we start digging and so it may be that we can do this quite a bit more quickly. but we are really trying to set expectations for the neighborhood because i don't want to go telling people that we other going to close it for five months and then have it closed for a year. and so we're trying to be realistic with the community. today the department has engaged with multiple neighborhood and community groups and will be continuing in the coming months to the work with the community on all of the issues they have addressed in terms of mitigating the closure and this will not go forward to the rec and park commission without a full plan to help with the mitigation issues. >> president wolfram: thank you

very much. commissioner hyland? >> i have some questions for mr. conover. this is one in a series of renovations throughout the city and many other parks. have there been any other evaluation of lessons learned? and were any of the other park reservations phaseed? >> yes. i can't speak to all of them. i know alta plaza and alamo were both phased. and a big part of that was due to their scale and they are quite a bit larger sites. and there were some real lessons learned that we are trying to apply on that project. so the full removal of the drainage system is one. and we've had others where that was not fully incorporated into the scope. and it ends up being a big change orders later. i think that is the best example i can think of. also with the pathways, while we don't have funding yet, we are really working and we would prefer to not go into this project and not address the

pathways because, one, the community really wants it, it will mean a closure, and if we had to do the pathways in five year, it would mean another closure, and nobody wants to do that. we have had others where the projects got extended because we realized halfway through that we needed to add that scope. >> a couple more questions for you. so can you further explain the removal and saying that some of the asphalt would not be or currently isn't funded, therefore, at some future time we hope to remrplace -- >> it would address the -- >> benches would on be touched if we do the repaving. so otherwise we are within the hard scape. >> i assume the removal of the a.c. paving is throughout.

if there is funding. but in the draw iing. >> it is not in generally great shape. >> an it wasn't clear to me exactly where all the grade areas -- >> would be replaced. >> and in the crosshatched areas are the ones regraded for the a.d.a. >> yes. >> the last question for you, what have you looked at as far as attempted phasing on this project? >> phasing would be pretty difficult. i can't say it would be impossible because anything is possible, but we are actually working to incorporate the cost of pavement. and what we would need to do in the high level is install the main drain and probably get 2/3 or maybe 1/2 of the branch drain

lines and effectively have a drainage system beneath the lawn that is akin to what you have at a golf course. it will be a really well drained system and this requires the removal of the top 9 inches of soil. the soil is a silty sponge. it just does not let water go. and so we will be removing the top 9 inches of soil, laying a new drainage network and doing engineered soil to replace the top 9 inches. and so this is what makes it a challenge to phase is we have relatively small site relative to some of the other park, but you have this interconnected drainage and irrigation network with the length that runs the perimeter of the park. and shutting down after the park and trying to keep other plants alive is a challenge. >> i guess i have one more question. if you don't redo the paving and if the paving remains as is? can the fence be moved?

to the inside perimeter? >> well, we still have -- >> so the park would be available? >> we still have -- we're still doing all the perimeter planting and that is also where the main irrigation line runs to feed into the park. so we need to trench through all of the perimeter pathways -- i'm sorry, all the perimeter planters to remove the existing irrigation system and then replace it with the new one. it is -- it is a challenge for sure. >> all right. >> thank you. >> so we'll actually take public comment on the project this time. so any member of the public wish to speak to the proposed project. if so, please come forward. >> i am dale widener. excuse me, i am getting a cold. i live in north beach, a member of the friend of washington square who have followed this project from the beginning.

we first heard about the start with the irrigation working with levi, rec and park, and then everybody said the drainage. and it turns into a swamp in other parts and the drainage made a lot of sense with the help of rec and park and aaron peskin getting the funding for that. it makes all the sense to the community that i know that we also address the need and the hardscape, what i call the hardscape. if you go down there now, it is a hodgepodge of -- i don't know if anybody live there is or goes through there, and the way it's put together. and it's going to damage. the people we have reached out in the community, my friend mark and joan, have reacted as we expected a lot of people are going to react when we shut it down. but the overall when you explain to them what is going on, they understand that these improvements are going to be for the future of the park, and are very valuable, and it is really unfortunate we have to shut it down and would be great if we could phase it and levi and other cans figure out how to phase it, perfect, but overall,

the community i talk to, the friends support what we are doing. it seems to make the most sense. shi shut it down and do all three things at once and keep the preservation and that is hugely proposing and the proposing of the hardscape does that. a lot of us in the community when they understand it, they do support it. we all understand and i have talked to levi and other friend, we've got to get the word out to the community. we have talked about organizations and when they hear overall, let's do it. shut it down one time and let's get it down for the future of the community and for the future of the park. it is a great park. it is overused and people love it. and there will be a lot of emotion that for a lot of us jus going to have to be done. >> thank you very much. >> and any other member of the public wish to speak to the project? if so, please come forward.

>> my name is mark bruno and i apologize for not saying that earlier. i want to point out in the case report provide bid the planning department, there is one sentence about outreach in 82 pages. the department has received public correspondence related to this project in regard to the duration of the closure of the park due to the remodel and the dislocation of the park's homeless population. that's it. if you to go through the 82 pages, the work closed or closure isn't anywhere. there is just one line in the 82 page, but more interestingly as joan told you before,some who wrote in crayon on the notice that was provided by rec and park, which is partially here on my computer. you can see if you were -- this pretty picture and go on and on about the project that is partially not even funded, the hardscape. and never once it here does it

say closed or closure, a year later, phasing, anything that implies that this has a bad effect on us. in fact, if you go back to page 8 -- the 82-page report, it just says there is correspondence about these topics, namely the closing of the park and the dislocation of the park. it doesn't say what the opinions is and maybe somebody wrote to us and said how great this would be to close the park because the homeless would have to leave. we don't know. there is a sense here that we are doing this no matter what because it is for your good. you don't know it is for your good, but if you knew better, you would be on our side. that is always the wrong way to act to a vocal and activist group in north beach. and perhaps now we should think about as the business community as was spoke on earlier that perhaps this isn't the right time, but nose are not up to me or -- those are not up to me or mr. conover or the planner but to all of us as a community, especially those who live there. let me also bring up an element, a planning element, that is

relevant and can be determined right here by this commission. so back when this park was landmarked, and i will point out that it was landmarked specifically at the request and with the work of telegraph hill dwellers. not the friends of the west, not me, i was the vice president a few years after that, but in 1998 and 1999, this group telegraph hill dwellers landmarked it. and in the architecture section of the c.o.a. request -- i'm sorry, the request to landmark at the time, the planning department wrote is, this square, washington square, the use here has been -- this is under the architecture and use category -- and the respect of washington square is the active involvement of the groups in the parks improvement and in the 1950s washington square was relandscaped through a project initiated by the committee for beautification of washington square including columbus avenue civic club, italian federation, north beach merchants and boosters -- the merchant, never

given a presentation here today. and the church north beach lions and church of saints peter and paul, boys and girls club, and participated and allowed to participate before they should be today because it's a very nature of the park. >> thank you. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to speak to this project? seeing and hearing none, we will close public comment. commissioners? >> commissioner -- >> thank you. i am glad i heard more of the presentation. i do think the staff did a good job related to article v and our specific responsibilities for assessing the compatibility of the design with what we're trying to achieve here. actually, the history of the park is absolutely fascinating. so i would -- the only thing is i would say and commissioner hyland, you asked about the phasing, and i realize the issues and you can say, well,

how does phasing or my interest in phasing relate to historic? but the article v say that we are agreeing that the project would maintain the existing use of the park as a public open space, and of course, that is use of the park and continuing use of the park, which it will, but anyway, i would encourage that the commission, park and rec commission, to consider if there is anything can be done to phase the project. but other than that, i think the staff report satisfies what i would be interested in relating to article v. >> thank you. commissioner matsuda. >> i have one clarifying question for mr. conover. you have the funding to do the irrigation, draining and treeing, correct? but you do not have the funding at the moment to do the paving.

>> we do not. >> so should you go forward with the project to do the irrigation and drainage and trees? and you are going to have -- you mention that you shared with us that the park will be closed up to one year. and let's say you don't get the funding for the paving until after that is completed. so the park then gets shut down again? >> i guess in theory -- so i don't have a perfect timeline on when we may or may not get funding. i would say if it does not become apparent in the near future -- i can't give you an exit date -- that we will -- that if it becomes apparent we will get funding for the pathways relatively soon, then we would delay this project until we knew we had the money. if something else came up and it just became an absolute no, then yes, we would just focus on the irrigation and drainage, and it

would be above me, and i don't know when money would come for pathways at that point. >> how long of a process is it to repave or to pave to bring it up to a.d.a.? >> i would say -- i would assume it would take two or three months. if you are just doing it by itself. >> thank you. >> thank you. director -- >> i have one more question, too, if you might. and best case scenario, when would you start work and close the park? >> best case scenario would be december of this year. it could be depending on funding, it could be any time into the following -- >> between now and when you start work, there would be meetings with the community? >> absolutely. >> and with the rec and park commission to go over the issues? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, we have a motion? >> i will move approval of the staff recommendation. >> second that.

>> president wolfram: seeing nothing, further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the matter with conditions on that motion. commissioner black? >> yes. >> commissioner johnck? >> yes. >> commissioner johns? >> yes. >> a commissioner matsuda? >> yes. >> a commissioner hyland? >> yes. >> commission president wolfram? >> yes. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. and in place of the item 6, 2018-004633pca. this is the mayor's process improvements ordinance. this is an adoption hearing. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jacob bintliff from the planning department staff. it is my pleasure to be here with you and thank you for the opportunity to walk you through two separate mat makers that are closely related.

the first summary of the presentation is to give a summary in terms to have mayor's executive directive on housing production that came out in september of last year, a number of items related to that. some of the items not being planned are being implemented through the ordinance introduced by the mayor. the second portion of the presentation is regarding your recommendation to the board of supervisors and on that ordinance specifically which is a component of influencing that plan. i wanted to make that clear for everybody. there we go. thank you. so i will open by giving the overview of the process improvements planned. and where we are with that. and so mayor lee issued this executive directive on housing production in september of last year. it was issued to a number of departments including the planning department. had a few things in it. one thing was to establish approval deadlines for the entitlement phase and housing project. this is said that we need to approve projects within a

certain time frame depending on the level of environmental review from six months to 22 months in the most complicated eir. second thing was a one-year approval time frame for the post entitlement. that mostly relates to the departments like d.e.i., public works and so on. and third element was accountability. regular reporting to planning commission, to historic preservation commission, to the mayor's office as well. senior manager, and our department was named to oversee the effort and that is from the planning department and the counterpart in the other departments. and of course, that we would find a way to guarantee or provide that the projects be approved within the time frame set out. and the final requirements were that the planning department was the issue of a process improvement plan with a bunch of measures to implement these time frames by december 1. so we did issue that. and also for the other agencies involved to put forth a consolidated interagency plan about the post entitlement component. that was required by april 1 and

that came out around mid april, april 15 in that time. so regarding the planning department, the process improvement plan that was delivered in december, and there were sort of five categories of measures that were proposed that are here on this lovely slide, but i will go ahead and dive right into them and talk about some of the matters that we are currently either recently implemented or are implementing now under each of the five categories. the first is regarding application intake and review. [please stand by]

... that provides all of the different types of entitlements and applications that were called out and any other documents related to environmental review. we moved several applications to receive them online in april. that is exciting. these are the more simple applications that will be moving over the rest of the year. that will be exciting. another major piece we're working on is to consolidate our applications. we have many different types of entitlement applications, they all come in different times and separately from the environmental review. in june, we'll be implementing a procedure to have a project application that every project puts in, that includes the environmental review. key information. and then everything will be supplemental to that.

our hope is that this is going to help us to have -- to gather one set of project information at a time, which will be wonderful for our data purposes and be able to look back and see what is going on at different times. it's meant to set us up for a lot more coordination between environmental planning and the folks in the current planning division who are implementing the planning code as well. there is a lot for both teams to cover, so it's hard to work together. we're trying to move to a consolidated approach. in addition, we have modification to the notification procedure. as i mentioned, kind of a more project coordinated approach for the current planner to be a project manager for that project, including environmental and otherwise. second, component of the plan was regarding routine permits and approvals. one thing i'll call your

attention to, we have the planning centre, where we can do same day approval of various things. we have preservation planner who are there on regular shifts. the shifts were split up, there is morning and afternoon, that was split by intervening shift. so that caused some consternation for folks coming in trying to be seen. they basically spend all day there. so we consolidated the hours, monday through thursday, 10:15 to 2:45 in the afternoon and gave the desk its own number wheel. what i heard so far, that people are happy with it. we're actually seeing most everyone who is coming in, that same day, so that was a really simple fix right there, getting people in and out of the planning information center when they have a preservation issue. and it's often people who don't

know they need to see the preservation specialist and then have to get back in line, but that is all going more smoothly. i won't go into great detail on a lot of the matters, but happy to answer questions. we're trying to pilot advanced over-the-counter approval where people can schedule appointments with us to handle project review on a same day approval and see if we can apply that to other projects in the future. environmental review and design review, we have more efforts that will be active in the fall. some of them involve legislation, some of them just involve the procedures of the environmental review. one thing to point out here, for historic preservation purposes, we have part of the environmental review process, historic resource determination, can be supplemental application

to that. we are now requiring people to not -- people can't give us an environmental application until after the ppa is issued. they'll do the application and then do the development application. so one issue with consolidating all those, is that really a lot of sponsors, one of the things they want to know is what is the preservation on the site? there is interest in having pre-application or predevelopment evaluation by staff of whether there is a historic resource evaluation, so our environmental planning presentation staff is working on that right now, seeing what is possible. i don't have a great deal of detail about that, but we're working on offering some kind of preliminary historic resource evaluation to folks whether they have application or not. that's a piece we can speak more about, but i wanted to call that

to your attention. regarding the planning code and commission policies, we have a number of items, one is included in the mayor's order yans, about the permitting processes for affordable housing and large residential projects downtown. also we'll be discussing proposed amendments to articles 10 and 11 regarding minor routines that could be the same day approval based on your recommendations. and finally, a number of ongoing improvements in the area of the administration and technology, one of them jermaine germane to our conversation is to come up with the addresses when we do public notification. we have been using third parties, the planner would need

to get from the sponsor the list of addresses provided by a third party, which of course they had to pay for, and then come back to us so we could print out the addresses, to send out the notices. we now have a great tool that our gis specialist just kind of did. and we said, oh, great, so we're saving a lot of time already. it makes sense i need 150, use the same assessor database and then another database purchased by the city to get at the mailing addresses to get to tenants and occupants as well. so a number of those things i mentioned are things we can do administratively or as commission policies, but a lot of what we do is implementing the planning code. so a number of the suggestions in the process improvement plan involve planning code amendments. to that end, mayor farrell

introduced an ordinance on april 24 that would implement the changes. i wanted to clarify the ordinance was reintroduced yesterday with a few minor changes. for commissioners and members of the public who grabbed the copies over there, there is one document that says executive summary, that overview of the ordinance and the planning department recommendations and the draft resolution. and the original ordinance, there is another one titled supplemental memorandum that has the full copy of the ordinance as reintroduced. just to clear up the confusion of what we're looking at. the ordinance, there is three categories that are covered in the ordinance. the first of them deals with approvals for 100% affordable housing projects and large residential projects in the downtown areas in the c-3 zoning district. the issue of affordable housing in 2016, the board of

supervisors approved, they created a new planning code, section 315 to allow us to do approvals of 100% of affordable housing only. the intention was so there wouldn't have to be additional hearings. not every project can access that because they have to be located in certain areas that offer certain exceptions. you have to be in these two neighborhoods or downtown to get these, and so on. we have projects that are really close to being approved that are 100% affordable under the current system. for 100% affordable projects only, we would be able to approve the project with the same level of exceptions through a planned unit development, which is pretty broad. it's anything that does not increase the height or the allowable density. those are the key things you can't do. we'd be able to do that administratively. and the planning commission can delegate their review authority to the planning department so there would not be a hearing for

those projects either. those seeking the 100% affordable housing bonus established in 2017, i believe, last year, those projects you would also establish administrative approval process. right now there is design hearing that has to occur, we would replace that with 315.1 and that would allow us to approve the projects provided they're in the program area, they meet all the requirements, they meet the design guidelines for the affordable housing bonus project and are limited to the density bonuses set for the program. the idea is we really want to, if it's 100% affordable, we want to have the maximum flexibility and roll out the red carpet. they're complicated to finance and get done and the uncertainty of having additional layers of approval can have significant impact for the projects. so regarding large downtown

residential projects that are not affordable, or not necessarily affordable, section 309 of the plans code governs our review of those projects. there are exceptions that can be granted. there is a planning commission for anything over a certain threshold. that would not be changing. we would be with this ordinance adding two exceptions that you can get from planning code requirements. those are usable open space and dwelling unit exposure. that is about the amount of open space any unit has to look out upon. in most cases, these projects have to get a variance from the zoning administrator to proceed, because the requirements simply are not compatible with the high rise tower in a downtown environment. so this would add those two as exceptions and planning section 309 there would be a hearing for the projects, but it would lepp us to review -- help us to remove one layer of review. neighborhood notification. right now, we do notification